NATARAJAN SUBRAMANIAN,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's status as a fruit vendor and potential family contributions, the Tribunal estimated the income and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a fruit vendor and senior citizen, failed to file returns for AY 2017-18 and subsequent notices. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144, adding Rs. 3,50,000/- for cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) granted partial relief based on previous year's cash in hand.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, given the assessee's limited income and lack of return filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Hearing: 12.06.2024Pronounced: 19.06.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Natarajan Subramanian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.67, Vaikkal Street, Ward 2(1) Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode Erode 638 452. [PAN: CFZPS 7186H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. R.Mukundan, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the assessment order dated 27.09.2021 passed u/s section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) by the ITO for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The registry has noted delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee (senior citizen) is a fruit vendor does not know about the process and procedure of law hence caused delay of 7 days. Considering the reasons and adopting pragmatic approach, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

The appellant has taken six grounds of appeal, however, sum and substance the sole issue involved in the appeal is related to cash deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- during demonetisation period. Assessee has not filed the return of income for AY 2017-18. Assessee has even not filed the return of income pursuant to notice u/s148 of the Act. Having no response from assessee, AO completed the assessment u/s144 of the Act on 27.09.2021 making addition of Rs.3,50,000/- u/s 69A. Ld.CIT(A) has given relief of Rs.24,433/- on the basis of ITR for AY 2016-17 wherein cash in hand was Rs.24,433/-. Hence , assessee is further in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the record, impugned order.

5.

It is fact that assessee is a fruit vendor and strive for his family livelihood. Assessee had filed the return for AY 2016-17 and cash in hand was Rs.24,433/-. In case of a fruit vendor, one can assume that he must be earning around Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- daily. Meaning thereby, his earning at the end of year will be around Rs.2,40,000/-. Since it was demonetisation period, deposit of cash in assessee’s account by other family members cannot be ruled out.

6.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case we estimate the income as mentioned in para 5 supra, as it explains the source of Rs.3,50,000/- from past savings of the assessee, its family members and daily earnings. There are no other deposits during the demonetization, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →